Comments for Someone Tell Me the Story http://someonetellmethestory.com Arbitrary meme from a homeward lark. Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The Victory of Deep Thinking in the Elephant Room Controversy (Hopefully). by Andrew Faris http://someonetellmethestory.com/2012/02/03/the-victory-of-deep-thinking-in-the-elephant-room-controversy-hopefully/#comment-589 Andrew Faris Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:22:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1841#comment-589 Hey Micah, Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It's definitely important to be able to figure out why something matters before we fight about it. A few responses: First, in general you underplay God's knowability in favor of His incomprehensibility.  It's true (yes, and amen!) that God is beyond our conception. We will never know God or even any one thing about God entirely. But saying that God is incomprehensible as a way of saying that He is therefore not knowable won't do. God has revealed Himself to us. We say that this is central to the Incarnation, just as it is to the giving of His Word. It's certainly central to the thinking in Jn. 1:1-18: Jesus, being the very Word of God, made God known to us by tabernacling with us. The point, of course, is that we are called into relationship with a God whom we can really know- and know real things about. The heart of God's knowability then is that while, yes, we can never know God or even any one thing about Him entirely, <i>we can know God and real things about God truly</i>. You have pretty badly understated that truth. Quite related to that is the truth that God <i>purposefully revealed</i> Himself to us. So not only is God knowable, but He wants to be knowable. You mention that terms like "Father" and "Son" are anthropomorphisms. Yes. But what's the point of any metaphor? Well, to convey to the audience something true. That is, to make something easier to understand- to share truth more easily. You make it sound like it is just the opposite. Metaphors, be they anthropomorphisms or not, are only problematic when we stretch them to far. This is the heart of what most Mormon apologists do wrong: they say that "Father" and "Son", for example, indicate two totally separate people. In response we say that they are missing the point of the anthropomorphism by stretching it in directions that it wasn't meant to be stretched. They make it about essence when it's actually about relationship. Isn't it interesting then that arguments in favor of the deity of Christ have never centered on words like "Son" but more on broader patterns of Jesus's actions and words in relation to the Father alongside specific passages? That is, we admit that metaphors are metaphors, such that we need to look at them only so far as they take us. Again, I think you miss this a lot. Finally, I wonder why you prefer to talk about God's holiness and love as knowable attributes of God instead of the intra-Trinitarian relationship. How do you know that God is truly holy and loving and just and so on? Well, because God has spoken and acted in ways that convey those truths (again, yes and amen!). But if God has equally spoken and acted in ways that convey truths about the Trinity, shouldn't we take that seriously, just as you would surely take it seriously if somebody began to question, downplay, or twist the holiness, love, or justice of God? Wouldn't you think, "This is worth fighting about?" If so, then my question is: why those and not the Trinity? Is it really true that those aspects of God's character are of greater revelatory signifcance and clarity than His Trinitarian nature? I suggest that the line you draw there is basically arbitrary. I'll end this comment with this quote from Bavinck that I liked from <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/17/our-salvation-is-bound-up-with-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/" rel="nofollow">this post</a> from Justin Taylor the other day: "It was this religious Christian interest, accordingly, that sparked the development of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity. At stake in this development—let it be said emphatically—was not a metaphysical theory or a philosophical speculation but the essence of the Christian religion itself. This is so strongly felt that all who value being called a Christian recognize and believe in a kind of Trinity. The profoundest question implicit in every Christian creed and system of theology is how God can be both one and yet three. Christian truth in all its parts comes into its own to a lesser or greater extent depending on how that question is answered." Andrew Hey Micah,

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It’s definitely important to be able to figure out why something matters before we fight about it.

A few responses:

First, in general you underplay God’s knowability in favor of His incomprehensibility.  It’s true (yes, and amen!) that God is beyond our conception. We will never know God or even any one thing about God entirely.

But saying that God is incomprehensible as a way of saying that He is therefore not knowable won’t do. God has revealed Himself to us. We say that this is central to the Incarnation, just as it is to the giving of His Word. It’s certainly central to the thinking in Jn. 1:1-18: Jesus, being the very Word of God, made God known to us by tabernacling with us. The point, of course, is that we are called into relationship with a God whom we can really know- and know real things about. The heart of God’s knowability then is that while, yes, we can never know God or even any one thing about Him entirely, we can know God and real things about God truly. You have pretty badly understated that truth.

Quite related to that is the truth that God purposefully revealed Himself to us. So not only is God knowable, but He wants to be knowable. You mention that terms like “Father” and “Son” are anthropomorphisms. Yes. But what’s the point of any metaphor? Well, to convey to the audience something true. That is, to make something easier to understand- to share truth more easily. You make it sound like it is just the opposite.

Metaphors, be they anthropomorphisms or not, are only problematic when we stretch them to far. This is the heart of what most Mormon apologists do wrong: they say that “Father” and “Son”, for example, indicate two totally separate people. In response we say that they are missing the point of the anthropomorphism by stretching it in directions that it wasn’t meant to be stretched. They make it about essence when it’s actually about relationship.

Isn’t it interesting then that arguments in favor of the deity of Christ have never centered on words like “Son” but more on broader patterns of Jesus’s actions and words in relation to the Father alongside specific passages? That is, we admit that metaphors are metaphors, such that we need to look at them only so far as they take us. Again, I think you miss this a lot.

Finally, I wonder why you prefer to talk about God’s holiness and love as knowable attributes of God instead of the intra-Trinitarian relationship. How do you know that God is truly holy and loving and just and so on? Well, because God has spoken and acted in ways that convey those truths (again, yes and amen!). But if God has equally spoken and acted in ways that convey truths about the Trinity, shouldn’t we take that seriously, just as you would surely take it seriously if somebody began to question, downplay, or twist the holiness, love, or justice of God? Wouldn’t you think, “This is worth fighting about?”

If so, then my question is: why those and not the Trinity? Is it really true that those aspects of God’s character are of greater revelatory signifcance and clarity than His Trinitarian nature? I suggest that the line you draw there is basically arbitrary.

I’ll end this comment with this quote from Bavinck that I liked from this post from Justin Taylor the other day:

“It was this religious Christian interest, accordingly, that sparked the development of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity. At stake in this development—let it be said emphatically—was not a metaphysical theory or a philosophical speculation but the essence of the Christian religion itself. This is so strongly felt that all who value being called a Christian recognize and believe in a kind of Trinity. The profoundest question implicit in every Christian creed and system of theology is how God can be both one and yet three. Christian truth in all its parts comes into its own to a lesser or greater extent depending on how that question is answered.”

Andrew

]]> Comment on The Victory of Deep Thinking in the Elephant Room Controversy (Hopefully). by Anonymous http://someonetellmethestory.com/2012/02/03/the-victory-of-deep-thinking-in-the-elephant-room-controversy-hopefully/#comment-588 Anonymous Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:40:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1841#comment-588 I just cannot bring myself to see that this issue of how we express our understanding of the Godhead, which itself is a mystery, is important enough to hurl about all this vitriol and division. There are bigger issues and to me the expression of the Godhead Jakes offers, though I would not fully subscribe to, has no variance significant enough from my own to feel it harms the depiction of God's nature and so falsely represents his glory. Idolatry as described in Deuteronomy 4:15 would at its root come from trying to too closely imagine a representation of the Godhead and fit it too securely in our own understanding or language. The Godhead will be a mystery to us until we enter eternity and perhaps even beyond and our every idea of what that Godhead is and how it is will only ever be an approximation formed out of the inadequacies of human language and the accomodations to that language that God himself makes in an endeavour to convey some semblance of His infinite majesty to finite minds. Words like Father, Son & Spirit - These motifs are either truths of which our understanding and experience are but shadows, or anthropomorphic expressions used of God to explain to us realities we would never be able to properly grasp otherwise. I know that God is One, but that in this oneness is three. Three what, I cannot tell - I, as would most reformed evangelicals, use the word persons. Jakes and others use the word 'manifestations'. But I am not of a mind to believe that any term is accurate enough to warrant the esteem of being called a definition. I feel it is beyond us to 'define' God. He is illimitable and thus cannot be defined to the extent that one means of articulating his singular plurality, his simultaneous oneness and threeness, is better than another. Let us know He is holy and pure and let us call Him divine and understand He is love and truth, beyond that, we can only tread carefully and hope our steps are not too laden as to leave a mark we insist all others follow. As God himself said to the israelites 'take heed to yourselves; for of me you saw no form or similitude'. He is God. We see Him but through a glass darkly, let a man not think the obscure shape he observes to be so clear as to discount all others. Though it is not beyond our hearts to know His nature, it is beyond our minds to understand his form. Because of this the bible remains the final authority, not a creed or any other formulation arrived at by the intellects of men. God, His form such as it is, cannot be apprehended by the careful study of men no matter how wise, it can only be revealed by His Spirit. For this reason I do not imagine the Archangel Gabriel interrogating Mary as to her understanding of the trinity before conferring upon her the news of the messiah's birth, or Peter querying Cornelius of the same before entering his house. And as such I cannot help but suspect that these 'doubtful disputations' are of more interest to us than they are to God himself. I just
cannot bring myself to see that this issue of how we express our
understanding of the Godhead, which itself is a mystery, is important
enough to hurl about all this vitriol and division. There are bigger
issues and to me the expression of the Godhead Jakes offers, though I
would not fully subscribe to, has no variance significant enough from my
own to feel it harms the depiction of God’s nature and so falsely
represents his glory. Idolatry as described in Deuteronomy 4:15
would at its root come from trying to too closely imagine a
representation of the Godhead and fit it too securely in our own understanding or language. The Godhead will be a mystery to us until we
enter eternity and perhaps even beyond and our every idea of what that
Godhead is and how it is will only ever be an approximation formed out
of the inadequacies of human language and the accomodations to that
language that God himself makes in an endeavour to convey some semblance
of His infinite majesty to finite minds. Words like Father, Son &
Spirit – These motifs are either truths of which our understanding and
experience are but shadows, or anthropomorphic expressions used of God
to explain to us realities we would never be able to properly grasp
otherwise. I know that God is One, but that in this oneness is three.
Three what, I cannot tell – I, as would most reformed evangelicals, use the
word persons. Jakes and others use the word ‘manifestations’. But I am
not of a mind to believe that any term is accurate enough to warrant the
esteem of being called a definition. I feel it is beyond us to ‘define’
God. He is illimitable and thus cannot be defined to the
extent that one means of articulating his singular plurality, his
simultaneous oneness and threeness, is better than another. Let us know
He is holy and pure and let us call Him divine and understand He is love
and truth, beyond that, we can only tread carefully and hope our steps
are not too laden as to leave a mark we insist all others follow. As God
himself said to the israelites ‘take heed to yourselves; for of me you saw no form or similitude’. He is God. We see Him but through a glass darkly, let a
man not think the obscure shape he observes to be so clear as to
discount all others. Though it is not beyond our hearts to know His nature, it is beyond our minds to understand his form. Because of this the bible remains the final authority, not a creed or any other formulation arrived at by the intellects of men. God, His form such as it is, cannot be apprehended by the careful study of men no matter how wise, it can only be revealed by His Spirit. For this reason I do not imagine the Archangel Gabriel interrogating Mary as to her understanding of the trinity before conferring upon her the news of the messiah’s birth, or Peter querying Cornelius of the same before entering his house. And as such I cannot help but suspect that these ‘doubtful disputations’ are of more interest to us than they are to God himself.

]]> Comment on Next Time We Hang Out, I’ll Be Using You to Get to God by Andrew Faris http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/12/05/next-time-we-hang-out-ill-be-using-you-to-get-to-god/#comment-587 Andrew Faris Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:53:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1813#comment-587 Louis, No doubt about it. Sin taints the image of God in us.  But it doesn't destroy it entirely. That's part of why I tried to clarify that the Bible does teach what human characteristics are in fact godly or not. Thanks for the comment. Andrew Louis,

No doubt about it. Sin taints the image of God in us. 

But it doesn’t destroy it entirely. That’s part of why I tried to clarify that the Bible does teach what human characteristics are in fact godly or not.

Thanks for the comment.

Andrew

]]> Comment on Next Time We Hang Out, I’ll Be Using You to Get to God by Louis Tullo http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/12/05/next-time-we-hang-out-ill-be-using-you-to-get-to-god/#comment-586 Louis Tullo Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:03:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1813#comment-586 I think the one thing to note is that there is an obstacle for us as human beings reflecting the image of God and that's sin. Romans 1 gives us a powerful portrait of what sin run rampant does, and in verse 25 Paul really hit the nail on the head speaking on the idolatrous nature of man - worshiping the "creature rather than the Creator." While we're all made in the image of God, we have to move behind pride in our humanity and possess a greater esteem of the one who created us. I think that's why one of the phrases that appears so often in Scripture is "transformed into His image" or "conformed into His image." I think the one thing to note is that there is an obstacle for us as human beings reflecting the image of God and that’s sin. Romans 1 gives us a powerful portrait of what sin run rampant does, and in verse 25 Paul really hit the nail on the head speaking on the idolatrous nature of man – worshiping the “creature rather than the Creator.” While we’re all made in the image of God, we have to move behind pride in our humanity and possess a greater esteem of the one who created us. I think that’s why one of the phrases that appears so often in Scripture is “transformed into His image” or “conformed into His image.”

]]> Comment on The Complexity and Simplicity of Social Justice by Andrew Faris http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/09/26/the-complexity-and-simplicity-of-social-justice/#comment-585 Andrew Faris Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:33:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1785#comment-585 Heard nothing but good things about that book and still haven't gotten to it yet. Soon and very soon. Thanks for the recommendation. Heard nothing but good things about that book and still haven’t gotten to it yet. Soon and very soon. Thanks for the recommendation.

]]> Comment on The Complexity and Simplicity of Social Justice by Brooke Cone http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/09/26/the-complexity-and-simplicity-of-social-justice/#comment-584 Brooke Cone Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:36:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1785#comment-584 My small group is reading this great book When Helping Hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor...and yourself. It is written by some "reformed types" (Fikkert & Corbett) who are economic development professors. Very thought provoking & practical. I recommend it if you are interested in justice, as all Believers should be. My small group is reading this great book When Helping Hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor…and yourself. It is written by some “reformed types” (Fikkert & Corbett) who are economic development professors. Very thought provoking & practical. I recommend it if you are interested in justice, as all Believers should be.

]]> Comment on Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 2 by Glen Smallman http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/09/22/way-of-the-donkey-an-interview-with-ken-way-author-of-donkeys-in-the-biblical-world-part-2/#comment-583 Glen Smallman Fri, 23 Sep 2011 02:49:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1746#comment-583 Mr. Eisenbrauns, Thanks!  Will fix immediately! Mr. Eisenbrauns, Thanks!  Will fix immediately!

]]> Comment on What is the Fear of God? by Joh Graves http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/01/26/what-is-the-fear-of-god/#comment-582 Joh Graves Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:24:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=791#comment-582 I think C.S. Lewis put it best when describing Aslan to Lucy. To paraphrase: Safe? Heavens no, he isn't safe! But he is Good. In other words, He has the power to destroy us utterly, and we are fools if we do not fear that. But the fear of the Lord is just the beginning of wisdom, because as we grow in our relationship with Him we learn more and more about the rest of His character, and He only desires good for us. On a side note. To what do you pay attention? We study and obsess over and keep our eyes on what we fear. I have been thinking lately that fear of Him is just another way for God to reach us. I think C.S. Lewis put it best when describing Aslan to Lucy. To paraphrase: Safe? Heavens no, he isn’t safe! But he is Good.

In other words, He has the power to destroy us utterly, and we are fools if we do not fear that. But the fear of the Lord is just the beginning of wisdom, because as we grow in our relationship with Him we learn more and more about the rest of His character, and He only desires good for us.

On a side note. To what do you pay attention? We study and obsess over and keep our eyes on what we fear. I have been thinking lately that fear of Him is just another way for God to reach us.

]]> Comment on Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 2 by Eisenbrauns http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/09/22/way-of-the-donkey-an-interview-with-ken-way-author-of-donkeys-in-the-biblical-world-part-2/#comment-581 Eisenbrauns Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:24:00 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1746#comment-581 Glen, Thanks for the interview and the plug for Eisenbrauns new book. You might want to update the link; the one you used is temporary and will expire in about 8-10 hours. Here's the permanent one:  http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WAYDONKEY James Glen,
Thanks for the interview and the plug for Eisenbrauns new book. You might want to update the link; the one you used is temporary and will expire in about 8-10 hours. Here’s the permanent one: 
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WAYDONKEY

James

]]> Comment on Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 1 by Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 2 : Someone Tell Me the Story http://someonetellmethestory.com/2011/09/21/donkeypalooza-an-interview-with-ken-way-on-donkeys-in-the-biblical-world-part-1/#comment-580 Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 2 : Someone Tell Me the Story Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:33:11 +0000 http://someonetellmethestory.com/?p=1740#comment-580 [...] with Dr. Ken Way, Talbot Old Testament professor, with some more practical questions. If you missed yesterday’s post, please go back and read it right this second. Don’t worry, we’ll wait for [...] [...] with Dr. Ken Way, Talbot Old Testament professor, with some more practical questions. If you missed yesterday’s post, please go back and read it right this second. Don’t worry, we’ll wait for [...]

]]>